I can’t imagine this belief has changed much of anything. First of all, as you point out, even if it were a legal standard, the lack of timeframe makes it is s

I can’t imagine this belief has changed much of anything. First of all, as you point out, even if it were a legal standard, the lack of timeframe makes it is such a flimsy concept as to be totally unenforceable. Cut R&D spending? The money could be better allocated elsewhere. Increased R&D spending? Increasing long term share holder value by creating new revenue streams. Even if we assume every board member is a slave to profit making on a short timeframe with no concern for the environment or human life, I can’t think of any issue before a board that would not have strong, profit oriented arguments on both sides. Buying solar panels? Screw the environment, that was just to reduce reliance on fluctuating local emergy prices. Cutting ties with your sweatshop? Just want to avoid the bad PR. And on and on. The idea that company board members would be acting in a more environmentally friendly and humane way, except that they think they have to operate under some vague legal standard just doesn’t make sense. Unlike the Internet, board members likely get their legal advice from lawyers. The answer is far simpler. Board members that act without regard for the environment and human life do so because they have none. Let’s not pretend they would all be Like Mother Theresa but got duped by Internet rumors.